The PABS Negotiations are a Devious Psychological Operation

The InterGovernmental Working Group is implementing a classic psychological operation on the unwitting "PABS negotiators." These are NOT member-led negotiations. These talks are rigged from within.

James Roguski

Sep 07, 2025

The negotiations for the PABS Annex resume September 15-19, 2025.

THE DELPHI TECHNIQUE OF MANIPULATION

https://nwri.org/lets-stop-being-manipulated-the-delphi-technique/

If you have watched any of the “negotiations” that have been conducted by the World Health Organization over the past 3+ years, you may have noticed that the people involved in these negotiations exhibited some very strange behaviors.

The people involved in the negotiations of the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) Annex are exhibiting the same strange behavior.

CLICK HERE to watch the recorded meetings.

Many of the participants in these negotiations seemed psychologically unable to think or speak for themselves. Instead, they appear to be programmed, hypnotized and obligated to repeat certain phrases over, and over and over. Phrases such as:

“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”
“Equitable access to pandemic related products”
“Pandemic prevention, preparedness and response”
“COVID-19 must be the last pandemic”
“These negotiations are NOT controlled by the WHO, they are member-led negotiations”

They seem completely unaware that they were (and are) participating in meetings that were being manipulated through the use of something referred to as “The Delphi Technique.”

The Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s.

The negotiators are being led to believe that their input matters, and that if they play by the rules, and kiss enough people’s asses with flattery and empty platitudes, then they may be looked upon favorably and thus be able to influence the final outcome of the negotiations.

The participants were (and are) NOT allowed to question the core premise behind the negotiations - that access to more and more “relevant health products” (fraudulent diagnostics, more drugs, more devices, more biological weapons masquerading as “vaccines” and now, more gene altering injectables) are the ONLY way to prevent “PHEICs” - fakes - Public Health Emergencies of International Concern that are based on the misuse of the RT-PCR process as a fraudulent diagnostic.

The PABS Negotiations are a Theatrical Production

The naive negotiators that are participating in the PABS negotiations still do NOT realize that they are taking part in a theatrical production.

These are NOT honest negotiations. These meetings are a master level course in psychological manipulation using “The Delphi Technique.”

In the hands of those who seek to control the outcome of an ongoing series of negotiations, the use of Delphi Technique can drive any group to reach a false consensus. A manipulative facilitator can easily trick participants into believing they have had a genuine opportunity to provide input along the way.

The structure of the negotiations, particularly the role of the facilitator and the handling of information, makes those participating in these sham negotiations vulnerable to manipulation by an individual or group with a hidden agenda.

A facilitator with a dominant personality can easily guide a group of low-energy, young, compliant and naive “negotiators” to reach the outcome desired by the manipulative facilitator who has skillfully led the “negotiators” to believe that their input helped to craft a final result when, in reality the result had been pre-ordained and would have been reached regardless of the input of the participants.

How the Delphi technique can be manipulated to achieve the desired results regardless of the input provided by the participants:

A Controlling Facilitator. The facilitator is crucial for manipulating the process, summarizing feedback, and structuring subsequent rounds of questioning. A manipulative facilitator can influence the outcome by:
- Disorganization at the beginning: What may seem to be flawed decisions at the start of negotiations, such as failure to define fundamental terms or set up a basic outline and coherent structure, is actually designed to lead to a time crunch at the end of negotiations during which negotiators are pressured to “achieve consensus” because of an impending deadline.
- Inhibition of Brainstorming: Especially at the beginning of negotiations, considerable time should be allocated for free-wheeling discussion through which creative ideas can be voiced by all. The blocking of such creativity is a clear indicator of a manipulated negotiation.
- Controlling participant selection: The facilitator selects a panel with a known bias toward the desired outcome. This might involve stacking the panel with "friendlies" whose ideas will support the hidden agenda.
- Filtering and framing feedback: A manipulative facilitator can misrepresent or omit inconvenient viewpoints when reporting the group's feedback. This ensures only specific ideas are advanced for reconsideration, shifting the group's focus away from unfavorable alternatives.
- Ignoring dissent: By declaring that consensus has been reached prematurely or by omitting dissenting opinions from feedback summaries, a facilitator can make it seem as though everyone agrees. Dissidents may give up or drop out of the process, and an artificial consensus is generated.
- Biased interpretation of results: The facilitator is in control and can analyze the quantitative and qualitative data from each round. A biased facilitator can misinterpret or oversimplify results to fit a preordained conclusion.
- Submitting unsolicited ideas and/or manipulating existing text: If a negotiation process was truly to be "member-led" then the facilitator(s) would never be able to submit, suggest or edit text. All ideas, questions and submissions would always come from the negotiators.
- Secret meetings involving only a portion of the negotiators: Informal gatherings in which small groups of negotiators meet with the facilitator(s) enable the small subgroup to influence and be influenced in greater proportion than is appropriate.
Rigging the expert panel. The selection of "experts" is the most critical element of the Delphi technique. Manipulators can stack the panel with individuals who already support the desired outcome, ensuring the process is rigged from the start.
- Selecting favorable participants: Panel members can be hand-picked for their known ideas or perspectives, giving the illusion of a diverse expert panel while steering the outcome toward a particular goal.
- Excluding dissenting voices: A manipulator can ensure that no participants with contrasting viewpoints are invited to participate, or they may block them from participating if they object to the process.
Structuring the questions. The way questions are framed significantly influences the outcome. A manipulator can write or approve questions that impose their own views and assumptions onto the group, leaving little room for alternative perspectives.
- Restricting the scope of inquiry: By limiting the questions or statements, the facilitator can prevent the group from exploring alternatives that challenge the desired outcome. The limited options force participants to operate within the narrow framework set by the manipulator. Narrowly framed or leading questions can restrict the possible answers, forcing participants to select from a severely limited set of options and ignoring potential outside-the-box solutions.
- Filtering and editing feedback: A legitimate process aggregates and summarizes all feedback. A manipulative facilitator may filter out dissenting opinions or edit feedback to soften opposition, creating a false perception of consensus among the group.
- Blocking public opinion: A manipulative facilitator can prevent public opinion and the brutal honesty that such unedited and uncensored commentary would bring in order to ensure the desired final outcome.
Exploiting group psychology. A skilled manipulator can leverage other psychological vulnerabilities:
- Scolding the negotiators: Shaming, embarrassing or pressuring the negotiators in any way is not an appropriate action to be taken by a facilitator.
- Praising the negotiators: Complimenting, praising and even just agreeing with any negotiator is a subtle form of manipulation that encourages other negotiators to go along with the program as determined by the facilitator, rather than demanding what is most in line with the individual negotiator's core position.
- Misrepresenting group responses: Manipulators can manipulate group responses by categorizing diverse opinions into convenient buckets, allowing them to dismiss nuanced or critical feedback.
- Exploiting social psychology: The core manipulation is exploiting the human need to belong and conform. Participants are led to believe they are working toward a collective, unbiased decision, while subtle psychological pressure is applied to herd them toward a single, pre-selected conclusion. The "illusion of collaboration" makes participants feel they had real input and encourages their buy-in to the rigged consensus.
- Pressure to adhere to an arbitrary schedule: A manipulative facilitator can promise to consider a negotiator’s demand and return to the discussion in the future, then claim that the negotiations need to move along due to time constraints, which invariable leads to the difficult demand being conveniently forgotten.
- Entrainment by repetition: Manipulative facilitators may emphatically declare untruths to be true (such as: “these negotiations are led by the member states”) and they will often repeat these falsehoods over and over, even though the are obviously not true.
- Misrepresenting consensus: The facilitator can use the feedback from earlier rounds to pressure participants to conform to the majority view. By presenting aggregated responses in a misleading way, they make it seem as though participants are already converging on the intended outcome, leading others to change their answers to align. This reduces the diversity of opinions and the validity of the results.
- Creating a false consensus: As participants see feedback summarized, there is a natural pressure to conform to the apparent group opinion. A manipulative facilitator can leverage this by presenting a distorted summary of feedback that favors the intended result, causing participants to shift their views to align with the fabricated majority.
- Exploiting the desire for closure: The iterative process can be time-consuming. Manipulators can wear down participants by prolonging the process, increasing the pressure to simply agree to the presented "consensus" to reach a resolution.
- Fear of group failure: Manipulative facilitators repeatedly remind the negotiators of the importance of reaching consensus as soon as possible for the good of the group. Constant reminders of what potential horrors will ensue if an agreement is not reached provides a crucial point of leverage over easily manipulated, emotionally naive negotiators.